Office of Postsecondary Education - U.S. Department of Education

66886 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and RegulationsWReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES2disbursement of aid until the studenthas successfully completed the previouspayment period. For such programs, ifan institution places the student onfinancial aid warning, the student willeither complete the program orwithdraw. If the student completes theprogram, then he or she has beensuccessful. If he or she withdraws, thenthe return of funds requirements in§ 668.22 will apply. In either case, thestudent received only those funds forwhich he or she was eligible. We do notplan to make any changes in this area.Changes: None.AppealsComment: Many commenters agreedwith allowing students who wouldotherwise lose eligibility for title IV,HEA aid to appeal the loss of eligibility.Some commenters expressed concernthat the requirements for an appeal weretoo prescriptive; for example, thecommenters noted that § 668.34(b)requires that students articulate whathad changed in their situation and thatstudents might not be able to complywith this requirement. Othercommenters stated that the Departmentshould make the SAP appeal regulationsmore prescriptive, including byspecifying the type of documentationrequired to be submitted with an appeal.Several commenters believed that it wastoo burdensome on institutions torequire them to address student appeals,while others stated that it was tooburdensome to require institutions todevelop or evaluate academic plans forstudents who appeal.Discussion: These SAP regulations donot require that an institution accept orevaluate student appeals ofdeterminations that the student is notmaking SAP. Moreover, the regulationsdo not require institutions to develop orprocess an academic plan for a studentwho appeals. These are merely offeredas options for institutions who wish toallow those students who are no longermeeting the SAP standards to continueto receive title IV, HEA aid. It isimportant to note that an academic planfor a student may be as complicated asa course by course plan toward degreecompletion, or as simple as amathematical calculation that specifiesthe percentage of coursework that thestudent must now complete. Academicplans need not be complicated ordetailed; the purpose of these plans ismerely to put the student on track tosuccessful program completion. Section668.34(a)(10) does require that aninstitution that does not accept appealsnotify students as to how eligibility fortitle IV, HEA aid can be regained bythose who do not meet SAP standards.An institution is free to craft a SAPpolicy that allows appeals or not, and tospecify when and how such appealswill be permitted as well as how oftenand how many times a student mayappeal. Likewise, an institution may ormay not allow an academic plan to besubmitted for a student. The SAP policyof the institution should specify theconditions under which an academicplan might be approved, or if one willbe considered at all. Becauseinstitutions have significant flexibilityin this area, the Department does notbelieve that these regulations willimpose any additional burden.Changes: None.Comment: Some commentersrequested clarification as to whenstudents on an academic plan would beevaluated. Several commentersrequested that we clarify that a studentmay submit more than one appealduring the course of his or her academiccareer. A couple of commentersinquired whether students could appealthe 150 percent completionrequirement, and exceed this maximumtimeframe if they are progressing underan approved academic plan.One commenter also asked theDepartment to clarify what is meant bythe requirement in § 668.34(c)(3)(iii)(B)and (d)(2)(iii)(B) that an academic planensure that the student meet the SAPstandards at a specific point in time.The commenter noted that the studentcould actually be able to graduate thefollowing term, and questioned whetheran appeal could be approved at thatpoint.Discussion: Under these regulations,the institution has the flexibility tospecify whether students on anacademic plan would have theiracademic progress evaluated at the sametime as other students, or whether theywould be subject to more frequent SAPevaluations. They should determinewhat is best for students and make theirpolicy clear in their SAP standards.As noted earlier in this preamble, aninstitution also retains flexibility underthese SAP regulations to allow multipleappeals by an individual student.Alternatively, an institution coulddecide not to allow appeals at all. Wenote, however, that because pace toprogram completion within 150 percentof the published length of theeducational program is required to beevaluated each SAP evaluation period,it would be reasonable to assume that astudent who is not meeting theinstitution’s SAP standards is not onschedule to complete the programwithin the required maximumtimeframe. Therefore, this component ofthe SAP standards would be subject toVerDate Mar2010 14:10 Oct 28, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29OCR2.SGM 29OCR2appeal, if the institution chooses topermit appeals. Finally, we expectinstitutions to assist a student whoappeals on this basis to plot a course tosuccessful completion within a newmaximum timeframe and to thenmonitor this pace toward completion.Any academic plan would need to takeinto account the student’s progression tocompletion of his or her program, whichcould, in fact, be the next term.Changes: None.Maximum TimeframeComment: Several commenters statedthat the Department should clarify the150 percent maximum timeframerequirement. One of the commentersnoted that § 668.34(b) did not definemaximum timeframe, as applied toprograms that are a combination ofcredit and clock hours or a combinationof undergraduate and graduate work.One of the commenters argued that thefinal regulations should reinforce the150 percent maximum timeframerequirement for all programs. Anothercommenter stated that we should clarifythat the 150 percent maximumtimeframe only applies to determiningtitle IV, HEA eligibility. This commentersuggested that this maximum timeframeshould not be used for other purposes.For example, the commenter stated thatit was not appropriate for theGovernment to determine whether ornot a student should be allowed tocomplete a degree simply because titleIV, HEA eligibility had run out. Anothercommenter asked whether the 150percent maximum timeframe applied tothe student’s entire academic career oronly to the student’s current academicprogram. The commenter gave theexample of a student who had onedegree, and asked if an institutionwould include those earned creditswhen evaluating whether the studentwas progressing in his or her programwithin the maximum timeframe.Discussion: The Department believesin allowing institutions the flexibility todefine the 150 percent maximumtimeframe in the most appropriate wayfor the program in question. Inparticular, individual institutions are inthe best position to determine whethertheir combined programs, such as thosenoted by the commenters, should beevaluated as the sum of its parts (i.e.,part clock hour and part credit forexample) or as one type of programbased on the structure of the majority ofthe program.The 150 percent maximum timeframeonly applies to the student’s eligibilityto receive title IV, HEA aid. TheDepartment has never regulated whetheror not a student is able to continue on